What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
430 Comments
- Chak2007, on 06/16/2009, -44/+145FTA: "Under the plan, expected to be released Wednesday, the government would have new powers to seize key companies -- such as insurance giant American International Group Inc. -- whose failure jeopardizes the financial system. Currently, the government's authority to seize companies is mostly limited to banks."
am I the only one, or does anyone else see the slippery slop that would happen if this ridiculous proposal makes it into reality. Getting rid of the free market, doesnt help it at all, we may have been in a big recession now, but if more legislation like this makes its way down the grape vine, thanks to yours truly we will be entering a depression. - inboxnews, on 06/16/2009, -45/+129"The plan would give the government new powers to seize key companies..."
Says it all.
Change? You bet! - richmomz, on 06/16/2009, -10/+60What the article fails to mention is that most of the the proposed new powers would go to the Federal Reserve, essentially allowing the Fed's controlling share members (which are almost entirely comprised of the very financial institutions that caused the financial crisis) to essentially regulate themselves AND give them virtually unlimited control over their biggest creditors.
- tman84, on 06/16/2009, -61/+100We need to realize that Obama is not a Socialist, but truly a Fascist.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
Benito Mussolini - creator of fascist idealism - Ajajadude, on 06/17/2009, -21/+52So, for the past year or so the economy was doing what exactly? Doing just fine?
I'm not entirely comfortable with his idea, but to accuse him of attempting to destroy our economy is stupid. - friday1970, on 06/16/2009, -43/+70Seize any company, any time, for any reason. No matter how liberals try to deny this, we are seeing the rise of the socialist state of America. Something has to be done about this, and we cannot wait to 2010 for more damage to happen to our country.
Obama is creating a watchdog to look out for consumer's interest, but fired a watchdog just last week who was supposed to be looking out for America's interests from government overreach and spending. How could you liberals let this happen? - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -15/+40Point me to the article in the Constitution where the Federal government has any authority to even consider this. I'll cherry pick all goddamn day if you want to talk about the supreme law of the land. Obviously you are as incompetent as Barry when it comes to that pesky document.
- Gandalff, on 06/16/2009, -16/+40I hate to admit this but that was not a cherry pick just because they sited an example company that was hated on with the help of the MSM orchestrated by the administration or at least with their knowledge as was later revealed by Senator Dodd other wise they would be just another company bailed out like so many others that are ignored after receiving Billions in US tax payer money.
You missed the entire point which inboxnews pointed out the most obvious which was the fact that we as US citizens and business owner are and will now be at the mercy of the government should they decide our company is too big to small not equipped enough to handle our business, needing to merge with another business to stay viable, they will need unprecedented access to our private information about our business in the US and abroad and how much money we make and from where, these are just a portion of the factors they will take into consideration when and if they decide to "seize key companies" and the types of companies as different types of companies affect our economy.
So where does our government draw the line in respects to free markets and capitalism? Maybe you should look for the trees through the forest. - Richandler, on 06/17/2009, -10/+33This move will only encourage banks to be more reckless showing that they do not have to suffer the consequence of irresponsibility and the government will back them in any effort. This is a disastrous policy.
- dikky, on 06/17/2009, -17/+39freepers are out in full force today
- nomarxist, on 06/16/2009, -17/+37You are NOT alone.
- Vermifax, on 06/17/2009, -10/+29It's definitely "Teabag Day" on Digg.
And they're servin' ***** Tacos.... - WasabiBomb, on 06/17/2009, -9/+27I normally have a lot of fun tweaking idiots... but there's so many today. Was there some sort of freeper role call this morning?
- h8f8kes, on 06/17/2009, -3/+20And this plan will work fine for you under any administration Tao?
- WasabiBomb, on 06/17/2009, -13/+28So let's examine your logic a bit, shall we?
The last administration apparently had nothing to do with our current economic crisis (according to you). Obama sees this happening, cackles a bit, twirls his mustache, and knows that know is the time to strike. He runs for office, and manages to run what was probably the most successful Presidential campaign in history- after all, he was a black Democrat secret Muslim (not even a US citizen!) who managed to soundly defeat a white war hero. The race isn't even close.
Now that Obama is in the Oval Office, he puts his plan into action. Somehow he managed to get the previous President to begin the work of repairing the economy, and Barack Hussein Obama (SECRET MUSLIM!!!) knows that this is the time to destroy the economy- one can only assume that his Secret Muslim Masters want economic dominance over the country. So he hires a bunch of economic stooges, er, advisers, and continues the bailouts started by the previous administration- thereby saving a good number of jobs. Even though the economy appears to be improving, and jobs are on an upward trend again, his plan for Muslim Economic Superiority is finally bearing bitter fruit.
That about cover it? - jadedsunrise, on 06/17/2009, -26/+41To all the Digg commenters saying that this is a slippery slope to socialism and facism...Really? REALLY?
Grow up or read a damn book. - pacerx, on 06/17/2009, -3/+17I'm of the firm belief that the different financial institutions need more oversight and regulation but I'm skeptical of a move that would give the government power to seize them with vague requirements. I would like to hear what the actual legislation of what would be required before any conclusions are drawn, but it's good to have people watching out for potential abuses of power.
As much as I hate the hyperventilating over nothing that seems to happen quite frequently with a lot of digg posters, this warrants a closer look. - wafla, on 06/17/2009, -9/+23doughpro -- so what is YOUR plan to fix the economy? And how would YOU legislate so that companies can compete without government gifts and cronyism? How can there be true capitalism without incentives to be capitalist? How do you make these companies competitive again, rather than just giant ATMs for the management?
I have this theory that the big complainers [a] don't know what's going on, and [b] if they do, they have no clue how to fix it. - wafla, on 06/17/2009, -14/+27Obama's proposals are in line with history. Whenever there's a huge crash due to rampant "capitalism" the government comes back with draconian legislation. Then slowly the legislation is picked away over the years as people forget the reason for it, until the next huge crash. Repeat ad nauseam.
So ultracapitalists get their periods of freedom, and not-so-ultracapitalists get their periods of time when they clean up the mess. Everybody gets to be happy, for a few years at a time. - ironhide, on 06/16/2009, -7/+20I have no Internet! How will I ever digg this crap down? Oh wait.....
- pacerx, on 06/17/2009, -2/+15google freerepublic.
click on any thread about michelle obama.
try to stop your brain from exploding after reading the comments. - wafla, on 06/17/2009, -3/+16He's the guy after President Bush.
- inactive, on 06/16/2009, -36/+49Americans need to develop a plan to seize the federal government.
- BillE3, on 06/16/2009, -22/+35We will become like Italy of the 1930's.
- richmomz, on 06/17/2009, -1/+14It is currently audited *internally* but those results are never made public, not even to Congress. There is a bill pending in the House (HR 1207) to change that though.
- Mnementh2230, on 06/17/2009, -18/+31How's about instead of bitching and complaining about legislation that hasn't even been written yet, you wait to see what it actually says and see what power it actually gives?
People are overreacting here.
SOME more regulation is needed, as it was the utter lack of regulation that caused this damned mess in the first place. On the other hand, too much regulation is going to have the same kinds of effects. There must be BALANCE. - doughpro, on 06/16/2009, -63/+76A big "thanks a lot, boneheads" to all those who voted for him. How about a big smack in the forehead instead? Disgusting.
- SpinningHead, on 06/17/2009, -7/+19Amazing how they forget it was the GOP that got us into this mess.
- IVillageIdiot, on 06/16/2009, -28/+40No matter how one cuts it, IT'S NOT AMERICAN....! (period)
- rhabdomancer, on 06/17/2009, -7/+19Hey moron, Pakistan was not on any do-not-travel list.
Get your facts straight before posting, moron. - shig, on 06/17/2009, -2/+14"All you conservatives and libertarians are forgetting one thing. This is the exact same thing the government ALREADY does with banks."
We haven't forgotten. We know the government's economics policies have failed, but every venture of government into the economic system has failed everywhere.
"There is nothing unamerican about this plan. This isn't socialism. This isn't fascism."
Socialism and fascism are not "unamerican" in the least.
"It's just an economic insurance plan."
From Fannie Mae's website "Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) chartered by Congress with a mission to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the U.S. housing and mortgage markets ... Fannie Mae was established as a federal agency in 1938, and was chartered by Congress in 1968 as a private shareholder-owned company."
"private shareholder-owned company"/"federal agency"
So it's an economic insurance plan for failed economic insurances plans, and not fascism at all? - mollydog12, on 06/17/2009, -21/+33the government can't regulate itself, how is it going to regulate anyone else ?
government is the problem, not the solution. - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -0/+12"There is nothing unamerican about this plan. This isn't socialism. This isn't fascism."
Please show me where Chak2007 made any of those claims ass hat. He simple said this policy leads to a slippery slope. Why do you always insist on putting words into people's mouth and incorrectly perceiving political ideologies? Because you are so personally invested in defending the false dichotomy that is the left-right paradigm?
Delusional Obama apologist, that is all. - thentro, on 06/17/2009, -0/+12I don't know if you supported Bush or not, but I love it when Republicans use Katrina to show that government doesn't work.
- sciencelovesyou, on 06/17/2009, -10/+21I'm not sure which is a more disconcerting concept: The idea that, as a tax payer, I could potentially end up seeing my dollary-doos go towards companies I want nothing to do with, or that fact that this thread has a creepy amount of people screaming about fascism and talking about violently overthrowing the federal government.
- Coven, on 06/16/2009, -6/+17I have no cable TV!? But but but how will I watch my liberal mastermind Jon Stewart!?
- Doubledown, on 06/17/2009, -1/+11I'm conservative and clearly voiced my opposition of every single bailout we've had.
- toddc612, on 06/17/2009, -2/+12Just saw the Frontline episode on PBS last night about how the financial crisis came to a head (fall of Lehman Brothers) in September of last year.. seemed pertinent to the understanding of this discussion.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meltdown/v ... - waaaahhh, on 06/17/2009, -1/+11an extremist right-wing neofascist group
- fiatjustitia, on 06/16/2009, -11/+21"Seize any company, any time, for any reason."
here's what the article actually said: "Under the plan, expected to be released Wednesday, the government would have new powers to seize key companies -- such as insurance giant American International Group Inc. -- whose failure jeopardizes the financial system. Currently, the government's authority to seize companies is mostly limited to banks." - butterpat, on 06/17/2009, -12/+22Obama is not trying to destroy the economy; he's trying to keep ruthless greed, irresponsibility, self-interest and mismanagement from destroying the economy.
- Doubledown, on 06/17/2009, -7/+17Fascism/Socialism... it all comes down to total government control. Something we do not need.
- friday1970, on 06/16/2009, -9/+19Ahh, but who ultimately decides this and who determines what constitutes a "failure to the financial system". And in the article "mostly to" can be translated to "but not limited to".
Sorry, but I dont any part of any government having any power over any business than isn't conducting fraud. If a bank or company goes bankrupt, the government should not be responsible for bailing them out. Let natural selection of capitalism decide this company's fate. When a bank or auto maker fails, another is sure to take it's place. - fisharmor, on 06/17/2009, -5/+15@babar77:
What definition of the word "among" is synonymous with "within", and which definition of "state" is synonymous with "private enterprise"?
Libertarians aren't hypocrites. They're literate. - inactive, on 06/16/2009, -8/+17Yeah, not all liberals are without internet access and cable TV. Hell, I work for a cable company. Nice generalization though.
- PhilliesBlunt, on 06/17/2009, -0/+9I remember that Enron became Enron due to letting the Enrons of the world write the regulations of a public utility.
- butterpat, on 06/17/2009, -4/+13Even if all that is accomplished is that the regulations which were put into effect after the Great Depression and then abandoned in more recent history are put back into place, the economy will be far more stable and people will be less likely to lose their retirement savings.
The wisdom in our forefathers' plans for governing the economy was lost on the politicians who never understood the depression and its causes. - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -2/+11"Who was it, again, who started the bailouts?"
It was a bipartisan effort *****... consult the voting record from the banker bailout. If I recall correctly, Obama missed the vote while campaigning but publicly supported it. Way to make yourself look ignorant yet again. - richmomz, on 06/17/2009, -2/+11What's a freeper?
- kkonarik, on 06/17/2009, -2/+11@jwkpiano1
Yeah because letting the banks that are greedy know they have some back up cash if they screw up is a good thing. How is that unregulated??? Who wouldn't be willing to take more of a risk with someone else's money???? regulation= gov. intervention, and when DC touches something 9 times outta 10 it will go to sh**.
We still have a whole slew of ARM loans (aka shady deals) getting ready to hammer the idiots who were talked into them and the banks that made them. More that last years.
It's gonna be fun folks -
Show 51 - 100 of 438 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is